Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Go get Verlander

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
816 replies to this topic

#41 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,448 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 03:50 PM

 

I'm not saying the Twins should go after Verlander specifically, but with Perkins, Santiago, Belisle, Breslow and surely Gibson coming off the books, the Twins are shedding 20.70M in five pitchers of which only one of whom has even been remotely useful this year. 

 

They don't have to spend it all in one place (though I'd vote they do) but they better be spending it somewhere. And I really hate the nickle and dime, quantity over quality approach to free agency.

 

They're also shedding the 4M or what-not they're paying Garcia to pitch for the Yankees. Which makes me think they are more open any and all options. At least more open than they used to be.

Agreed about the money part but I'm not ready to risk the 2018 season on Verlander's arm, which is a real possibility if you acquire that contract and give up Gonsalves and Gordon.

 

If you have Verlander's contract, okay. So you're not going to spring for a real pitcher in FA because you already have $50m tied up in Verlander and Mauer.

 

You no longer have the option of Gonsalves to fill out the rotation if things go badly.

 

You no longer have the option of Gordon if Polanco takes a step back and you no longer have the option of trading Dozier this offseason.

 

Which means you run out close to the same team in 2018, only the payroll is a lot higher now.

 

That's a gamble I'd be willing to take if the Tigers are eager to shed salary and take a smaller prospect deal... but not for both Gonsalves and Gordon.

  • alarp33, DJSim22 and DocBauer like this

#42 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,153 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 21 August 2017 - 04:34 PM

 

Agreed about the money part but I'm not ready to risk the 2018 season on Verlander's arm, which is a real possibility if you acquire that contract and give up Gonsalves and Gordon.

 

If you have Verlander's contract, okay. So you're not going to spring for a real pitcher in FA because you already have $50m tied up in Verlander and Mauer.

 

You no longer have the option of Gonsalves to fill out the rotation if things go badly.

 

You no longer have the option of Gordon if Polanco takes a step back and you no longer have the option of trading Dozier this offseason.

 

Which means you run out close to the same team in 2018, only the payroll is a lot higher now.

 

That's a gamble I'd be willing to take if the Tigers are eager to shed salary and take a smaller prospect deal... but not for both Gonsalves and Gordon.

It's not going to take Gordon.

 

As far as Gonsalves, I wouldn't even bat an eye.  

 

Or, just keep running out the Melvilles of the world and hope.

 

And the bolded part is simply wrong.  As noted above, there are $20M-ish in just pitching salaries coming off the books next year.  So payroll hasn't jumped (which it could, BTW), and you're already not bringing back the same team.

  • Vanimal46, Tomj14 and bighat like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#43 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:26 PM

No thanks. The Twins should not even be thinking about Verlander. 2 years left for $56M. He has been hot lately and would most likely demand additional years added on to the contract to waive his no trade clause. He most likely has 1 more solid year left but after that it's all down hill.

 

Way too miles on his arm for any team to give him additional years. It would be worth it for Houston for just the 2 years if he gets him to the World Series. For Minnesota to get him they would also need a way better closer to try to make the push. Besides the Twins are chasing a Wild Card and not a division leader.


#44 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,110 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:43 PM

At this point in time, I would still rather stick with the possibilities prospects will bring to the team than spend all the money on an aging game changer. I don't think he would totally put us over the edge for this season, especially if we would have to tradeoff any parts of our current lineup (be it Kepler or Rosario) and considering how much it would improve us for 2018...I would rather hope we can get the same, if not better, results from the likes of Romero, Jorge and Stewart...if not individually, at least in combination for the next couple of years and spend the money elsewhere in the off-season.

 

We are still excited here, but one of up to a half-dozen teams in the second wild card playoff hunt.

 

  • brvama likes this

Joel Thingvall
www.joelthingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com


#45 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,261 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:48 PM

Arrietta, Darvish, Tanaka, Cueto - better than Verlander, will be expensive


FYI, Tanaka and Cueto are opt-outs that probably won't be exercised, judging by their current numbers/health.

#46 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,448 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:49 PM

 

And the bolded part is simply wrong.  As noted above, there are $20M-ish in just pitching salaries coming off the books next year.  So payroll hasn't jumped (which it could, BTW), and you're already not bringing back the same team.

No, it's really not. Yeah, a lot of money comes off the books. On the flip side of that coin, existing player salaries also increase, such as Brian Dozier. That wipes out at least $5-6m of that $20m, maybe as much as $7-8m if you retain Escobar. And Verlander is paid $28m so that's a $13-17m payroll increase without doing anything.

 

Does that leave room to spend money? Sure, maybe $10m, which barely gets you one good reliever. I don't see the Twins increasing payroll by more than $25m this season (which they absolutely should do, I'm simply saying that acquiring Verlander eats most of your offseason options).

  • DocBauer likes this

#47 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,628 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:53 PM

 

If you take on the entire salary commitment it won't be this expensive in terms of prospects.  And that's the whole point.

 

This.. I cannot imagine Verlander being that expensive given that he's underperforming his salary. I'm fine picking him up, because his underperformance is still a heck of a lot better than we are getting right now. I don't think he'd cost much to be honest.


#48 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:53 PM

I'm not saying the Twins should go after Verlander specifically, but with Perkins, Santiago, Belisle, Breslow and surely Gibson coming off the books, the Twins are shedding 20.70M in five pitchers of which only one of whom has even been remotely useful this year.

They don't have to spend it all in one place (though I'd vote they do) but they better be spending it somewhere. And I really hate the nickle and dime, quantity over quality approach to free agency.

They're also shedding the 4M or what-not they're paying Garcia to pitch for the Yankees. Which makes me think they are more open any and all options. At least more open than they used to be.

they should grow their payroll a bit too

#49 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,448 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 05:56 PM

 

This.. I cannot imagine Verlander being that expensive given that he's underperforming his salary. I'm fine picking him up, because his underperformance is still a heck of a lot better than we are getting right now. I don't think he'd cost much to be honest.

To be clear, I'm not against acquiring Verlander but the price has to be cheap to offset that contract.

  • Blake, diehardtwinsfan and DJSim22 like this

#50 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:00 PM

No, it's really not. Yeah, a lot of money comes off the books. On the flip side of that coin, existing player salaries also increase, such as Brian Dozier. That wipes out at least $5-6m of that $20m, maybe as much as $7-8m if you retain Escobar. And Verlander is paid $28m so that's a $13-17m payroll increase without doing anything.

Does that leave room to spend money? Sure, maybe $10m, which barely gets you one good reliever. I don't see the Twins increasing payroll by more than $25m this season (which they absolutely should do, I'm simply saying that acquiring Verlander eats most of your offseason options).

Dozier increases 3 mil. They won't offer Escobar arb. They might sign him off open market but not at 4 mil. My guess is opening day utility guy is vielma or free agent

I haven't been able to find the payroll spreadsheet lately. Is it still there? That was nifty

Edited by Sconnie, 21 August 2017 - 06:01 PM.


#51 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 14,261 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:01 PM

I agree, and I think everyone is forgetting that he just passed through waivers! Someone could have had him... or been stuck with him... for nothing! Why is he all of the sudden worth 3 or 4 of our top 25 prospects?


Revocable waivers. His no trade clause actually prevents Detroit from giving him up on waivers without his consent. And they weren't going to give him up without getting prospects in return, so no one bothered claiming him. I wouldn't read too much into it. Bryce Harper reportedly cleared waivers too, by the way.
  • Sconnie and Vanimal46 like this

#52 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Twins World Champions in 2019

  • Members
  • 9,769 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:12 PM

 

http://www.espn.com/...astros-audition

 

Best possible combination of help in 2017 and help in the next couple years, right where the Twins need it, at a reasonable cost and not for the 6-7 years it'll take to get a similar pitcher over the winter.

 

Verlander isn't quite what he was, but he's still very good.

 

To put things into perspective:

 

Verlander in 2017: 3.96 ERA, 4.12 FIP, 1.31 WHIP, 14.0 % K-BB%.

Owed $56 Mil for his age 35 and 36 seasons and has a $22 M vesting option for his age 37 season.

 

Berrios in 2017: 3.99 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 1.15 WHIP, 14.5 % K-BB%

 

So Verlander is pitching just about as good as Berrios this season.

 

Older Mystery pitcher in 2016: 3.43 ERA, 3.99 FIP, 1.21 WHIP, 12.1% K-BB% 

Arguably better numbers than Verlander in 2017, no? 

Hint: He is with the Twins now.

 

That's what you risk when you try to get Verlander.Never mind the 3 more years of contract and the prospects you will give up...

 

Plus:Getting Verlander might get the Twins to the post-season but will not get them past the Red Sox, Astros and Dodgers.

 

So they better play the kids instead

 

 

Edited by Thrylos, 21 August 2017 - 06:12 PM.

  • LA VIkes Fan and DocBauer like this
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#53 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:29 PM

To put things into perspective:

Verlander in 2017: 3.96 ERA, 4.12 FIP, 1.31 WHIP, 14.0 % K-BB%.
Owed $56 Mil for his age 35 and 36 seasons and has a $22 M vesting option for his age 37 season.

Berrios in 2017: 3.99 ERA, 4.01 FIP, 1.15 WHIP, 14.5 % K-BB%

So Verlander is pitching just about as good as Berrios this season.

Older Mystery pitcher in 2016: 3.43 ERA, 3.99 FIP, 1.21 WHIP, 12.1% K-BB%
Arguably better numbers than Verlander in 2017, no?
Hint: He is with the Twins now.

That's what you risk when you try to get Verlander. Never mind the 3 more years of contract and the prospects you will give up...

Plus: Getting Verlander might get the Twins to the post-season but will not get them past the Red Sox, Astros and Dodgers.

So they better play the kids instead

losing Santiago and Gibson, they can do both

#54 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:34 PM

Hellickson might take less than that, because he has an ERA of 5 and a 5.5 K/9 this year...

"Icky" Ricky Nolasco signed a 49 mil contract. Had to trade away a prospect to get his equivalent back. Stuck with that garbage for 4 years. I'll take the 2 years of Verlander, given the choice.

Edited by Sconnie, 21 August 2017 - 06:35 PM.

  • Tomj14 likes this

#55 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 20,000 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:51 PM

http://www.espn.com/...astros-audition

 

Best possible combination of help in 2017 and help in the next couple years, right where the Twins need it, at a reasonable cost and not for the 6-7 years it'll take to get a similar pitcher over the winter.

 

Verlander isn't quite what he was, but he's still very good.

How does your math hold up if Verlander demands a 2-year extension in return for waiving his no-trade clause? Because my recollection is that's how a lot of no-trade's work out.

  • Sconnie likes this

A painter should not paint what he sees, but what will be seen.-- Paul Valery


#56 Carole Keller

Carole Keller

    It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,527 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:53 PM

How does your math hold up if Verlander demands a 2-year extension in return for waiving his no-trade clause? Because my recollection is that's how a lot of no-trade's work out.

Damn math
  • ashburyjohn, USAFChief and Sconnie like this

“May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.” ~Laura Dern
 


#57 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:56 PM

I agree, and I think everyone is forgetting that he just passed through waivers! Someone could have had him... or been stuck with him... for nothing! Why is he all of the sudden worth 3 or 4 of our top 25 prospects?

passing through waivers means nothing. IF it means anything, it means teams thought he could be had, but it might take extra haggling and they might run out of time in the waiver period.

#58 Blake

Blake

    Super Duper Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,116 posts
  • LocationBakersfield CA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:58 PM

 

To be clear, I'm not against acquiring Verlander but the price has to be cheap to offset that contract.

Yes. That makes sense.


#59 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,931 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:58 PM

How does your math hold up if Verlander demands a 2-year extension in return for waiving his no-trade clause? Because my recollection is that's how a lot of no-trade's work out.

depends on the value of the extension... ML min... maybe, then it's Icky Ricky contract

#60 jimbo92107

jimbo92107

    Señor Member

  • Members
  • 3,886 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:16 PM

Bidding war with Houston, a team that is set to make a serious run right now. We played them, remember? They killed us, and so did the Dodgers. 

 

All I got to say is, remember what happened to Cinderella. Sure, she married a prince, but then what happened? They sat around in a castle. Playoffs came, and they just sat there in that castle. They went NOWHERE. 

 

That's all I got to say.

Edited by jimbo92107, 21 August 2017 - 07:20 PM.

The door opened. A woman screamed. Someday, my mom would learn to knock.